Worst Royal Rumble match

[King Kamala 0]

When I first read the title of this thread I was thinking it meant worst match on a Rumble PPV, and I'm not sure if I'd vote for Undertaker vs Yokuzuna or HHH vs. Scott Steiner.

 

The Undertaker Vs IRS from Royal Rumble '95 also has to be up there. At least Undertaker-Yoko and HHH-Steiner were memorably bad, that match was just boring ass shit.

[... 0]

'94 was rather anemic, other than the double winner angle and the origin of "The Diesel Treatment."

[Nate 0]

I gotta say 1999, the whole show minus Rock/Mankind was just bleh, the Rumble match lacked serious star power and it was basically the McMahon/Austin show if I got my Rumbles in the right order

[Silence 0]

I voted 1999. It was centered around Austin/McMahon and the rest were either Corporation/DX members or random mid-carders.

 

I have a feeling 2008's Rumble might not be so great either since most of the top stars are already in other matches, unless Rey, Edge, Jericho, JBL, Flair, and/or MVP qualify from winning their matches.

[cabbageboy 0]

Yes, but here is one thing about HBK in 1995....I hated him with a passion. Oh and Bulldog was my favorite wrestler and I desperately wanted Bret to quickly end the Diesel shit before it started, and for Bulldog to win the Rumble and give me a great rematch at WM from the Wembley classic. But god knows the WWF had to have their little Kliq lover's quarrel at WM in one of the lowest drawing WMs ever. Ah well, at least I got Bret/Bulldog II in Dec. 1995. So yes, in terms of detesting the winner and also hating every aspect of the booking, 1995 wins in a walk.

 

1988 isn't good of course but it was the first time for the match and needs to be taken with a grain of salt. And how on earth is anyone mentioning the 2007 Rumble on this list? That was a great Rumble.

 

As far as the worst actual match at the Rumble....HHH vs. Steiner. Gotta be. UT/Yoko may have had some truly absurd booking, but the actual work in the match was decent. They weren't out there fucking up spots left and right.

[King Cucaracha 0]

I voted 1999. It was centered around Austin/McMahon and the rest were either Corporation/DX members or random mid-carders.

 

Of course it did! It was 1999! That's like saying any WCW show from 1996 sucked simply because it was centered around the NWO.

 

I'm surprised that people are using the "at least it was short" line as a defence for the '95 Rumble. It's the biggest one off match of the year. It's not supposed to be short. The reason it was short was the same reason that it sucked, because there was no real effort put into it. It was a total 'fuck you' to anyone who bought the PPV, because it's main selling point was so BLATANTLY treated as unimportant and a waste of time.

Edited January 20, 2008 by King Cucaracha

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Gotta go with 1999 as well. The first two minutes are good with Austin/McMahon. From about #20 on, the action is decent. But everything in between is outright terrible with plenty of non-action, backstage segments and JTTS. There are several places in this Rumble where people are just standing around waiting for somebody else to come in. Outside of the action, I find it absolutely ludicrous that a wrestler can be in the Rumble, leave for an hour and then come back and win having never been eliminated. I am pretty forgiving when it comes to realism and wrestling, but that was just embarrassing and made a complete mockery of the match, moreso than the 1 minute intervals in 1995 (which is the runner-up in this category).

 

One thing that I always felt was stupid about 1995 was that with the lack of star power, they went and eliminated two of their strongest competitors (Owen Hart & Bob Backlund) in under a minute. Without those two it left only Bulldog, Michaels & Lex Luger with any chance of winning at all and it really killed the drama of the match. There wasn't any surprise when Shawn & Bulldog went bell to bell because there couldn't be anybody else.

 

It was a total 'fuck you' to anyone who bought the PPV, because it's main selling point was so BLATANTLY treated as unimportant and a waste of time.

 

To be fair, it was heavily advertised to be only one minute intervals before the event. Vince used to mention about every five seconds on the shows leading up to it that it would be the fastest (in a good way) Rumble ever. It didn't work out.

 

Worst match is HHH/Steiner. That was an abomination.

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

I just re-watched 2007 today... I don't care how uneventful the first 40 minutes are (though Sabu's elimination is cool), the Final 4 part and beyond is very good and the Final 2 with Taker/HBK is probably one of the best finishes in Rumble history.

[haws bah gawd 0]

I just re-watched 2007 today... I don't care how uneventful the first 40 minutes are (though Sabu's elimination is cool), the Final 4 part and beyond is very good and the Final 2 with Taker/HBK is probably one of the best finishes in Rumble history.

 

I agree with you 100%. Undertaker and HBK tore the fucking house down when they were the last 2 guys in. I'd love to see them get about 20+ minutes to work a full match.

 

My favorite Rumble Eliminations are still:

 

Taka Michinoku's face plant in 2000 - Jerry Lawler asking for it to be replayed about 60 times throughout the Rumble brought a laugh from me everytime.

"BAH GAWD KEENG HERE COMES THE GOODFATHER! Yea that's nice J.R., but can we see Taka get thrown out again?"

 

and, Paul London's shooting star sell of Snitsky's clothesline in 2005 (or was it 2006?)

 

The worst match is easily HHH vs Scott Steiner. What was going on here? Was Steiner just THAT out of shape, or was HHH not cooperating? I know it seemed like HHH sandbagged him on the doubleunderhook powerbomb attempt, but they were blowing WAY too much stuff in the match.

 

On topic though, my least favorite Rumble is probably still 1999. I just never cared too much for Vince winning, even if it did tie-in well to his feud with Austin.

 

[RepoMan 0]

Worst match is HHH/Steiner. That was an abomination.

 

That's what immediatly came to my mind when I saw the title of this thread.

 

[cabbageboy 0]

I don't think HHH purposely was fucking with Steiner in that match. He himself came off looking like shit almost as much as Steiner, so he had nothing to gain.

 

Here are my brief thoughts on every Rumble:

 

1988: Just the first one, a trial. Can't really rate it against the others.

1989: This sucked pretty bad. All of the big time guys like Hogan and Savage were gone by the end, and we get Big John Studd as a winner when no one cared.

1990: This was a very good Rumble with an awesome Hogan/Warrior bit, but I don't get why Hogan won this to be honest. DiBiase was great here.

1991: Very underrated. Martel was the iron man here and this time Hogan winning definitely made sense and had to be done.

1992: Best Rumble ever, most on the line ever. Flair delivers one of the best performances I've ever seen in a match, and the numerous storylines weave into it. Classic, classic stuff. Must see.

1993: This started out well enough with some big name guys in it, but man by the end it really ran out of steam. The Gonzalez run in killed it, as did Yoko's win. Backlund was superb however.

1994: Middling stuff here, really lame and botched finish. As befitting the mid 90s Rumbles, there's a severe lack of star power here.

1995: As noted, an abomination. 1 min. intervals, a truly heinous finish that I can't stand, and I hated Michaels at this point. Burn the fucking tape.

1996: This time everyone knew HBK was winning. The Rumble was pretty bleh and uneventful really, don't recall much about it. Not good by any means.

1997: Austin kicks all sorts of jobber ass in this one. Another dumbshit finish though that set up all sorts of controversy and in a way helped lead to a lousy WM buyrate. The Fake Diesel lasts to the end of this too, dear god.

1998: Austin obviously had to win and this accomplished what it needed to. Rock was great in this and the various Foley appearances were amusing although they telegraph that he can't win.

1999: Certainly not good but it is at least car wreck amusing in the Russo vein. Vince winning sucked, and I have wondered ever since why more people don't just hang around outside the ring during the Rumble.

2000: Taka's elimination was funny and Rikishi has his moments, but I don't especially like this Rumble. Not the worst, but not great. Rock needed a decisive Rumble win but we get this Big Show bullshit instead.

2001: Very good Rumble, near great. Austin won since he had to, but it was Kane that carried the mail here.

2002: A very mixed bag. The winner was obvious (HHH). And he made sure to bury poor RVD and some others, which pissed me off to no end. But Mr. Perfect DID finish 3rd, so that saves it from any sort of Bottom 5.

2003: I don't even remember this Rumble aside from Lesnar winning in lame fashion with #29. If this was the one with Maven eliminating UT, then that was hilarious. Or was that 2002?

2004: Putting aside Benoit, this was one of the best Rumbles. A truly great final sequence as Big Show destroys everyone until it's down to him vs. Benoit, and Benoit somehow gets it done. Not as good as 1992 though, since it doesn't have quite the storylines involved, and Benoit doesn't COMMAND the Rumble like Flair did. Know what I mean?

2005: A very good Rumble that managed to have some controversy and yet a clear winner in the end (Batista). Also a key Cena moment in his near win. Near great.

2006: I didn't like it much. HHH and Rey going the distance was so cliched and tiresome, especially when one is a midget with zero shot of lasting that long. This one showed that the "1-2 entrants lasting an hour" stuff had jumped the shark.

2007: Speaking of which, this was non formula since #30 finally won (UT). Perfectly booked in nearly every aspect from the Final 4 to the last 2 and UT vs. HBK is classic stuff. One of the best Rumbles.

[King Kamala 0]

As mediocre as '95 and '99 are, I'm not sure if I can say I've ever truly hated a Rumble. Even those two are **-**1/2 matches. And every other one to me is at least somewhat entertaining.

[Ravenbomb 0]

As mediocre as '95 and '99 are, I'm not sure if I can say I've ever truly hated a Rumble. Even those two are **-**1/2 matches. And every other one to me is at least somewhat entertaining.

 

My feelings exactly.

 

 

And whoever said the Piper/DiBiase/Roberts/Savage sequence was 2 of the best minutes in any Rumble, I completely agree with you.

[J.T. 0]

Yes, but here is one thing about HBK in 1995....I hated him with a passion. Oh and Bulldog was my favorite wrestler and I desperately wanted Bret to quickly end the Diesel shit before it started, and for Bulldog to win the Rumble and give me a great rematch at WM from the Wembley classic. But god knows the WWF had to have their little Kliq lover's quarrel at WM in one of the lowest drawing WMs ever. Ah well, at least I got Bret/Bulldog II in Dec. 1995. So yes, in terms of detesting the winner and also hating every aspect of the booking, 1995 wins in a walk.

 

1988 isn't good of course but it was the first time for the match and needs to be taken with a grain of salt. And how on earth is anyone mentioning the 2007 Rumble on this list? That was a great Rumble.

 

As far as the worst actual match at the Rumble....HHH vs. Steiner. Gotta be. UT/Yoko may have had some truly absurd booking, but the actual work in the match was decent. They weren't out there fucking up spots left and right.

 

Easy there, marky. This is not asking what match you hated when you were a teenage fan. Take your Grade 10 hate for ole HBK OUT of the mix. Plus Bret/Bulldog would not have drawn at all since Bulldog was a midcarder then.

 

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

1997: Austin kicks all sorts of jobber ass in this one. Another dumbshit finish though that set up all sorts of controversy and in a way helped lead to a lousy WM buyrate. The Fake Diesel lasts to the end of this too, dear god.

 

2001: Very good Rumble, near great. Austin won since he had to, but it was Kane that carried the mail here.

 

I find these two statements together amusing (both characters were played by Glen Jacobs).

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

cabbageboy you're not making a lot of sense there...

 

1994 has a "botched" ending despite it going as planned.

2005 is "Very good with some controversy" but that finish WAS botched.

[cabbageboy 0]

Well both were botched really, but what I meant by 1994 was that both men were supposed to touch at the same time but by all accounts Bret really won. Either way the 2005 Rumble was a much better overall match, and while it was botched the finish was at least in the end decisive.

 

As far as the 1995 Rumble goes, that's just it.....it's impossible for me to put my personal feelings aside. In terms of Bret vs. Bulldog not being a draw, hell it only drew the biggest fucking crowd in WWF history for SummerSlam 1992 (if you buy that WM 3 was only 78,000). There was certainly more evidence that it would draw than face Diesel vs. heel Shawn. WM XI did the worst buyrate of any WM up to that point, so would Bret vs. Bulldog really have done worse than a 1.3 buyrate if they had played up the past history properly?

[King Kamala 0]

I have a hard time believing anything would have drawn as main event at WrestleMania XI (except LT-Bigelow). WWF was just so shitty at the time. And the sad thing is it wouldn't hit rock bottom for another six months or so.

[PILLS! PILLS! PILLS! 0]

As far as the 1995 Rumble goes, that's just it.....it's impossible for me to put my personal feelings aside. In terms of Bret vs. Bulldog not being a draw, hell it only drew the biggest fucking crowd in WWF history for SummerSlam 1992 (if you buy that WM 3 was only 78,000). There was certainly more evidence that it would draw than face Diesel vs. heel Shawn. WM XI did the worst buyrate of any WM up to that point, so would Bret vs. Bulldog really have done worse than a 1.3 buyrate if they had played up the past history properly?

 

Except that was in the UK. And Hart-Bulldog did headline a PPV later that year, garnering a 0.3, so yes they could have done worse than a 1.3 buyrate. Michaels/Diesel was the best bet that they had at the time, and, even then, that was not advertised as the headlining program.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I have to go with '95, hands down, just based on the complete lack of stars. I remember renting that tape with a friend, and he kept asking me "Where are all the good wrestlers?" during it. Pretty embarrassing year for the WWF in general.

[majormayhem1 0]

For the era, I thought 93 and 94 Rumbles were good. 94 had the Hart's splitting up, the UT resurrection, etc. They're good period pieces.

[King Kamala 0]

Lack of star power isn't an excuse for the shittiness of The '95 Rumble, '94, '96, and '97 had just as shitty lineups and all of them managed to all be pretty good. Now the one minute intervals, that's a good explanation to why it was so shitty.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

1995 takes the cake for me. I enjoy watching it the least due to the short time limits and really crappy finish. The WWF got really lucky Michaels was able to pull himself back into the ring because on the replay his second foot comes within mere inches of touching the floor.

 

1999 is tough to get through but I'm a Vince McMahon mark and I won a $5 bet off of that Rumble with a friend as he thought Austin would win. I remember watching the show at his house and jumping about 10 feet into the air after McMahon won.

 

It's funny how 1995 is such a horrible year for the WWF and yet that is the year that I first started watching wrestling. I started watching on the eve of WrestleMania XI and I guess it's a good thing I was a young mark because despite the bad action on the TV screen I ate that stuff up. It's embarassing to admit but I was pumped for Diesel-Mabel at SummerSlam '95.

 

[Black Lushus 0]

it's a shame that 95 has a stigma for being a shitty year (which, well, it was) because there were some damn good matches scattered throughout.

[Guest JuanJoseNYC]

The 1995 Royal Rumble match has got to go down as probably the worst lineup of superstars ever assembled. They could have done a lot better by importing names from all over the world for a one-time deal. The other RR years didn't merit too much for this, but 1999 was handled poorly as well, but not as bad as 95.

[strummer 0]

it's a shame that 95 has a stigma for being a shitty year (which, well, it was) because there were some damn good matches scattered throughout.

 

 

Agreed. Looking at it objectively, 1995 was one of the better years in WWF history workrate wise. That said (like others have been saying) it was unbearable to watch most of the time